Searching \ for '[TECH] Actual cost of CFLs was: Just how useful ar' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=just+how+useful
Search entire site for: 'Actual cost of CFLs was: Just how useful ar'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH] Actual cost of CFLs was: Just how useful ar'
2009\12\31@190811 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
While I find merit and interest in a discussion of US costs of CFL's,
seeing Vitaliy and Bob discussing what is and isn't a government
subsidy immediately rings alarm bells.

As much as I hate to see such interesting discussions termianted, may
I please suggest that this stop now - as B&V, regardless of why, have
shown a mutual inability to maintain such discussions stably. This is
a no blame Y'all die situation, shoot everyone and move on, take no
prisoners, makes life much simpler, nothing to see here, move along
please, thankyou.

Offlist abuse is welcomed :-)

FWIW: I don't think NZ CFLs are subsidised. Prices have risen
substantially from a year or so ago.

In some areas carbon credits may be able to be claimed for CFL
introduction at levels which substantially exceed the cost of the
bulb. I can comment further on that, but it's probably most unwise to
do so onlist. Maybe in OT?



        Russell

2009\12\31@191700 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> While I find merit and interest in a discussion of US costs of CFL's,
> seeing Vitaliy and Bob discussing what is and isn't a government
> subsidy immediately rings alarm bells.

Agreed, sorry Russell!

Best regards,

Bob


'[TECH] Actual cost of CFLs was: Just how useful ar'
2010\01\01@104421 by Howard Winter
face
flavicon
picon face
part 1 1719 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded quoted-printable)

Happy New Year, to those who believe in that sort of thing!  (Having said that, I've just realised I don't know where the year-change originates, although given the names of the months I assume it's from the Romans.  But I digress, even before I've gressed! :-)

In Europe, including the UK, it's pretty-much impossible to get "ordinary" incandescent bulbs now.  Special shapes and clear-envelope ones are still available, but not the ones that everyone used to use - this was mandated in an EU regulation a year or so ago.

The prices of CFLs have plummeted, and if you're paying as much for them as you used to for incandescents, you're not paying attention!  The energy companies give them away, usually in packs of 4, for joining "energy saving surveys" and such, there have been "bring in a bulb and get a free CFL" sessions at supermarkets and DIY shops, and I recently bought a pack of 4 "60W equivalent" CFLs from B&Q (similar to Home Depot in the US) for 38p.  That's 8.5p each (a tad under US$0.14, NZ$0.19, 0.10 - that last one is Euros for anyone whose character set doesn't handle it).  I now have so many of them bought cheap or free that I'm having trouble finding space to store them!  Even in ordinary supermarkets you can get 4 for less then 1.  At this price someone is obviously subsidising them, but I believe it's the energy companies, and I see that as a Good Thing.

I haven't written dates on CFLs before, but I'll start doing that now to get an idea of their life.  They feel like they last longer than incandescents, but I have no actual evidence yet.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England




part 2 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2010\01\01@115019 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> NZ$0.19,

Selling for 20 to 40 times that here.
Really.

Probably $3 to $6 each with few at the lower end at numerous above the
top of that range.
A year + ago you could get 3 x Philips Tornado 20W for $NZ10 but that
pricing has vanished.

$NZ1 ~= $US0.75 at present

            R

2010\01\01@123417 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Hi Howard,

Do you know why the cost is so low? Is there a government subsidy?
(I'm not trying to re-start the pseudo-political discussion on the
merits of subsidies, just curious to know if that is the case here)

Sean


On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Howard Winter <spam_OUTHDRWTakeThisOuTspamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2010\01\01@191559 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
I'll say in public wahat I consdiered writing in private (secret ? :-) )

>> TANSTAAFL

> There are if you provide them. I was with lots of people on Christmas
> day giving meals to the hungry.

> The material point is, somebody (you, the sponsoring charity, etc) had to
> pay for the meals. There are few truly "free" things.

> P.S. I too believe in helping people out. I'm sure you and I disagree on
the
> means, and the style.

> www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Matthew+6:3-4
I would very very much rather that Vitaliy had not made that last aside,
and even more wish that he'd not added quotation, even though I (obviously)
consider that there is nothing wrong with it in its intended place. The
verse is intended as private advice from the originator to the reader, and
as soon as the verse is used to publicly comment on people's actions it
stops achieving its original aim. As a "sermon" it may be offered to others
for their consideration. As advice or comment on an internet list its liable
to achieve an end that was never intended.

If I were Bob I'd feel somewhat got at by Vitaliy, and I'd also suspect that
that was V's intention. (Bob's too sensitive about such things :-) - but
that doesn't mean V can't be a bit more careful).

By quoting that verse in that context and in the company of the preceding
line a reasonable interpretation, if not perhaps the intended one,  is that
Vitaliy does good things for people and he knows he should keep it secret,
but he can't bring himself to do so. :-).

How am I doing so far?
Does that feel like being got at?
Maybe not - you (V) know that I have due respect for both you and Bob - but
PLEASE have some thought about how your comments may reasonably be expected
to be taken - even if you think that it's unreasonable that they be taken
that way :-).

________

An aside: In times distant past I have been involved in the provision of
Christmas fare and celebrations for those who would otherwise have probably
have sat alone, usually in minimal bed-sit type accomodation. My role was
transport provision - they didn't let me near the meals. I haven't done that
for many years now. As last Christmas approached I thought about having done
that on past occasions, felt that it would be extremely worthwhile to do it
again, and knew that the helter skelter pace of life and other inadequate
excuses would mean that it wouldn't happen. So, I especially appreciate
people the world over who actually get out there on Christmas day, or any
other day, and do the sort of thing that makes a difference to people's
lives. (You know who you are)(And that will be people who we do and don't
know about).


I don't think this belongs on [TECH] :-)



    Russell







>  -

2010\01\01@235458 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Russell McMahon <.....apptechnzKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a "sermon" it may be offered to others
> for their consideration. As advice or comment on an internet list its liable
> to achieve an end that was never intended.
>

True

> If I were Bob I'd feel somewhat got at by Vitaliy, and I'd also suspect that
> that was V's intention. (Bob's too sensitive about such things :-) - but
> that doesn't mean V can't be a bit more careful).
>

I don't think Bob's too sensitive about it. Any time government gets
mentioned here it gets turned into an Ayn Rand rant... extrapolate the
discussion a few dozen passes back and forth and you just have pissed
off people and you lose bystanders to accelerated attrition. There are
numerous other places to argue about politics. The piclist has been
lacking in good content recently and bringing up politics isn't going
to help that.

--
Martin K.

2010\01\02@004242 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> The piclist has been lacking in good content recently ...

Do you mean to tell me that you don't read my posts ?

:-)

                 R

2010\01\02@080607 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
M.L. wrote:
> I don't think Bob's too sensitive about it. Any time government gets
> mentioned here it gets turned into an Ayn Rand rant... extrapolate the
> discussion a few dozen passes back and forth and you just have pissed
> off people and you lose bystanders to accelerated attrition. There are
> numerous other places to argue about politics. The piclist has been
> lacking in good content recently and bringing up politics isn't going
> to help that.

Just a few points, then I'll "shut up".

1. Note that I did not bring "government" or "economics" into the
discussion, I was (as I do on most occasions) responding to someone else's
post. It is not my intention to stir up trouble, but simply to provide an
alternative POV.

2. Over the years, I had stated several times that I would accept a "zero
tolerance" policy, as long as it is made official, and enforced
consistently. Unfortunately, at present the guidelines are vague, and what
is or is not tolerated is largely determined by the personal views of
certain admins.

3. IMO the comments about the real (unsubsidized) cost of CFLs were relevant
to the thread. As engineers we have a responsibility to consider the "big
picture" because our decisions affect the world we live in.

4. Historically, the PICList had never been a place where only PIC-related
discussions were allowed. If PICList became an email version of Microchip's
forum, it would quickly lose its appeal.

5. For as long as I can remember (I've been a member for almost a decade),
people have been complaining that the PICList is in decline, and making
predictions about its imminent demise. A cursory review of recent threads
suggests that the rumors are exaggerated. ;-)

Sincerely,

Vitaliy

2010\01\03@083909 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Sean,

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:33:46 -0500, Sean Breheny wrote:

> Hi Howard,
>
> Do you know why the cost is so low? Is there a government subsidy?
> (I'm not trying to re-start the pseudo-political discussion on the
> merits of subsidies, just curious to know if that is the case here)

I don't know for sure but I strongly believe there is no government susidy (they would be crowing about it if there were, surely?).  

I understand the energy companies themselves are subsidising - they certainly encourage the notion that they're being helpful to their customers!

I'm not going to get drawn further into discussion of where the money comes from - this isn't the right place for that, IMHO!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2010\01\03@090851 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> Do you know why the cost is so low? Is there a government subsidy?
>> (I'm not trying to re-start the pseudo-political discussion on the
>> merits of subsidies, just curious to know if that is the case here)
>
>I understand the energy companies themselves are subsidising -
>they certainly encourage the notion that they're being helpful
>to their customers!

There was a piece in one of the UK papers over the last week, about how one
of the electricity supply companies had mailed all their customers CFL bulbs
as part of their carbon emissions offsetting. They had to do some carbon
offsetting before the end of 2009 or face very large fines from the EU.

Found it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6973577.ece

2010\01\03@091521 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
1.  Discussion of government and/or subsidies on this thread is hereby
forbidden on pain of annoying action by at least one admin. If you wan to
discuss the genuine aspects of CFL pricing then doing so in OT MAY be
appropriate.

Neither Vitaliy or Bob should do so ;-)

2. Given that I asked

>
"          As much as I hate to see such interesting discussions terminated,
may
I please suggest that this stop now - as B&V, regardless of why, have
shown a mutual inability to maintain such discussions stably. This is
a no blame Y'all die situation, shoot everyone and move on, take no
prisoners, makes life much simpler, nothing to see here, move along
please, thankyou."
/>

Notwithstanding offlist discussions with several people I'd have really
really really appreciated it if you (Vitaliy) had indeed desisted as
requested, rather than

> ... Just a few points, then I'll "shut up"....

I asked both you and Bob to stop when both had had an essentially equal
albeit brief crack at the subject. I personally have absolutely no problem
with what either of you had said or with the subjet in general. It's the
demonstarted inability of either of you to handle it well when things ramps
up that makes it necessary to stop early. It doesn't even matter if the
'blame" for ramping up is more on one side than the other, or not, as the
case may be. If there is just ONE head-banger in a discussion then the
admins can deal with it. If two people go ballistic it tends to spread
flaming debris everywhere.

Having you add "just a few points" and not having Bob do so is as as unfair
as anything else that you in turn may consider unfair. By all means make the
points offlist, as suggested.

I appreciate the perceived unfairness, but it goes both ways. You don't have
to see that as logical (even though it is). When you have two people who
cannot see eye to eye over more than a few exchanges on subject material
which starts as not quite marginal but which then becomes 'outside the pale'
it would be good if said protagonists could learn to stay away from the
edge.

And yes, we could refine the rules somewhat if essential, I guess. But I'd
have hoped that minimal rules and enlightened behaviour were
what would be preferred.

I used to wonder why James was so hair-triggered in his reactions and final
warnings when people said and did certain "innocuous" things. I'm beginning
to see why.

I sadly also see that politely asking

               " ... may I please suggest that this stop now ... "

just doesn't work. I HATE to see useful and/or interesting threads killed
for no reason. But it seems it may be needed.

I'll have to look at some of James' old posts to get the "First warning =
Final warning = even breathe in and you die ..." wording goes :-).

__________________

New arbitrary rule made up by Russell. It's unofficial. People may wish to
decide if its useful. If commenting then please do so under [OT]:: New rule?
DO NOT comment on this thread.

New rule?:

- If a thread, OR the response to a thread is related to a technical subject
but also contains references to government OR to subsidies then it MUST be
in [OT].

- This rule does not relax or replace any existing rule. (It just adds
hardship to what exists already)

- This is NOT an opportunity or avenue to discuss the CFL price / subsidy
matter.

Any comment must be in [OT].




      Russell

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...